Petitioner moved for anticipatory bail in impersonation of theft/illegal mining case involving 600 CFT stone chips. Court rejected plea noting vehicle owner's bail did not establish petitioner's innocence. Directs surrender within four weeks.
Petitioner directed to surrender before court below within four weeks and pray for regular bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 327 of 2023
------
Sakaldeo Yadav .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Addl.P.P ------
Order No. 03 Dated- 17.03.2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 161 of 2022 instituted under Sections 379/414/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 and Section 54 of Jharkhand Mines & Minerals Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
It is alleged that the petitioner was indulged in transportation of 600 CFT stone chips without valid transit challan and on seeing the police officials, he managed to flee away.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2022 in A.B.A. No.8904 of 2022, but the owner of the vehicle has been granted anticipatory bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.11.2022 in A.B.A. No.9027 of 2022. Hence the petitioner has renewed his anticipatory bail application only on the ground that anticipatory bail has been granted to the owner of the alleged vehicle. It is further submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the owner of
-2-
the vehicle was granted anticipatory bail on plea taken by him that the vehicle was entrusted with the present driver, Sakaldeo Yadav, who was transporting the stone chips without consent and knowledge of the owner, hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any reasonable ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, which stands rejected.
Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks and pray for regular bail, the learned court below shall consider the same on its own merits, without being prejudiced by this order.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
R.S./-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is reasonable ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner who was implicated in transportation of stone chips without valid transit challan.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Sakaldeo Yadav
The State of Jharkhand
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
